» Articles » PMID: 29736794

Quality, Readability, and Understandability of German Booklets Addressing Melanoma Patients

Overview
Journal J Cancer Educ
Publisher Springer
Date 2018 May 9
PMID 29736794
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Booklets are the preferably used form among patient education materials and are often handed out during medical consultations in dermatological oncology settings. However, little is known about how beneficial they are and whether they correspond to essential quality characteristics. To assess the quality, readability, and understandability of currently freely available booklets written in German addressing melanoma patients (MP). Melanoma booklets in accordance with predefined criteria were searched and analyzed. Three reviewers independently assessed their quality and understandability by applying the DISCERN tool and PEMAT-P. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) was calculated to determine readability. Nine booklets addressing MP were analyzed. The overall median DISCERN score was 3.6 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.9-4.1), median PEMAT-P score was 91% (IQR 83-94.5), and median FRES was 43 (IQR 33.5-47.5), indicating a medium quality, a high application of understandability elements, but low readability in at least half of the booklets. Incomplete reporting on treatments and insufficient meta-information caused the main quality deficits. There is a need of content and didactic revision of German booklets for MP to raise their quality and to make them beneficial and understandable for more patients. An adaption in accordance with evidence-based criteria and an even stronger involvement of MP in assessment and development of patient education material are considered to be the best approaches.

Citing Articles

One Website to Gather them All: Usability Testing of the New German SKin Cancer INFOrmation (SKINFO) Website-A Mixed-methods Approach.

Steeb T, Brutting J, Reinhardt L, Hoffmann J, Weiler N, Heppt M J Cancer Educ. 2022; 38(4):1264-1270.

PMID: 36585570 PMC: 10366310. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-022-02258-5.


Parental Cancer: Acceptance and Usability of an Information Booklet for Affected Parents.

Melchiors L, Geertz W, Inhestern L Front Psychol. 2022; 13:769298.

PMID: 35282192 PMC: 8907886. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.769298.


Assessment of the Quality, Understandability, and Reliability of YouTube Videos as a Source of Information on Basal Cell Carcinoma: Web-Based Analysis.

Steeb T, Reinhardt L, Harlass M, Heppt M, Meier F, Berking C JMIR Cancer. 2022; 8(1):e29581.

PMID: 35275067 PMC: 8956995. DOI: 10.2196/29581.


Participatory Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the User-Friendly Patient Information Material Checklist (UPIM-Check).

Salm S, Mollenhauer J, Hornbach C, Cecon N, Dresen A, Houwaart S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(16).

PMID: 34444518 PMC: 8393725. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168773.


"I Feel I'm in Best Hands with You!": A Survey of Patient Satisfac-tion in a German University Skin Cancer Centre.

Steeb T, Wessely A, Merkl H, Kirchberger M, Voskens C, Erdmann M Acta Derm Venereol. 2021; 101(6):adv00482.

PMID: 34027558 PMC: 9380274. DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3837.


References
1.
CHARNOCK D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R . DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53(2):105-11. PMC: 1756830. DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105. View

2.
Davis T, Williams M, Marin E, Parker R, Glass J . Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002; 52(3):134-49. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.52.3.134. View

3.
Moult B, Franck L, Brady H . Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect. 2004; 7(2):165-75. PMC: 5060233. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00273.x. View

4.
Houts P, Doak C, Doak L, Loscalzo M . The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 61(2):173-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004. View

5.
Rice R . Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform. 2005; 75(1):8-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032. View